Perhaps the sorest thumb that continues to stand out is that Pakistan has ignored the genocide, and in fact they continue to deny it.

Bangladesh has, very painfully prosecuted some of these war criminals whilst Pakistan continues to deny it.
Mention anything about this in 'Dawn Newspaper' and you will be censored out.
Is it not about time that both kayani an Musharaff were prosecuted for war crimes?
And then the USA needs to make some politicians accountable as well - just to make itself more credible on the Syria problem.

Consul General Archer Blood acted out of idealism when sending cables to Washington, DC, describing the horrors inflicted upon East Pakistan by the West Pakistan Army. Although his dissenting commentary led to an early career end, today, the American Center Library in Dhaka is named after him. During the dedication ceremony, Chargé d’Affaires Judith A. Chammas remarked that Mr. Blood eventually received a State Department award that recognizes creative dissent. She praised the Consul General is “unafraid, resolute, and relentless in search for the truth.” One wonders how many US diplomats have been recognized for dissenting with the democracy and stability-building Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay’s detention camp that insists on feeding its guests, and the drone attack campaign that rains down terror from above, never discriminating against anyone in the entire Pakistani village.

Thanks for covering on Bangladesh again. Well, what's right figures of causality during war of liberation 300,000 or 30,000,000 ?
If 300,000 then what's your source? We are claiming to have 30,000,000 since independence. Please explain the fact.

Yes, the ones they didn't commit. I do however agree that we must stop expecting the US or indeed any nation to do the idealistic/moralist thing selflessly. It does not happen.
At the same time the US and the West must cede the moral high ground they so smugly claim as their own

Here is why the US gets constantly, and frequently wrongly, blamed for much of the world's ills: it is their concept of American exceptionalism.
Therefore, let us all take Exception to American Exceptionalism!!!

Really speaking partition of India was artificial.Immature Hindu and Muslim leaders accepted partition haphazardly they were so hated each other want to be separated in any condition.British government was famous for cunning tactics.Gandhi again again requested British government please vacate India as it is we Indians ready to face anarchy but we don't want artificial partition, he knew absurdity of Partition and horrible result of partition.He was too old to prevent this terrible tragedy Pakistan, India and Bangladesh experiencing same torment hardship aches we experienced in partition time.Greatest mistake of ignorance and blunder of world histroy

Really speaking partition of India was artificial.Immature Hindu and Muslim leaders accepted partition haphazardly they were so hated each other want to be separated in any condition.British government was famous for cunning tactics.Gandhi again again requested British government please vacate India as it is we Indians ready to face anarchy but we don't want artificial partition, he knew absurdity of Partition and horrible result of partition.He was too old to prevent this terrible tragedy Pakistan, India and Bangladesh experiencing same torment hardship aches we experienced in partition time.Greatest mistake of ignorance.

Funny how the finger points to the US lapse in policy in 1971 when its the British who CREATED the blood(y) meridians East and West of Undivided India with a single stroke to create Pakistan back in 1947!

Had this not happened, another 4 million lives that were purportedly lost during the partition migration and riots would also have been avoided in 1947-48, and the 1971 genocide would not have occurred.

Then, as now, US President was working against general opinion of Americans. Once the dust settles, I am pretty sure, we'll be reading similar articles on Iraq and Syria (hopefully not on Iran), as we nowadays read about Vietnam and Bangladesh.

The lesson of the history is simple - A well informed Public opinion is more likely to be correct than machinations of Machiavellian elites with little regards for human lives.

Since when a war crimes tribunal wasn't set up by the opposing political party (of the war criminals). If Pol Pot's friends were in power, would they try him? We will eventually get the criminals within Awami League. But the one arrested so far (most from Jamaat, which doesn't even receive 5% of votes, ever) are the big fish. Let them get tried first.

Wars never end. Long after they’re over, the victims and the witnesses harbor resentments and fears that they don’t fully understand. Europe may know this after the end of war unfolded with Cold Wars and immigration issues, but Asia, with less sophisticated institutions of sociological understanding hasn’t yet understood the real loss which massacres and authoritarianism have unleashed in the minds of it's supposedly resilient and innocent people.

The damage that massacres and famines have done to Bengal isn’t just of lives (either of Muslims or of Hindus) but more so that of intellectual vigor and social milieu – a kind of damage that neither Bengal nor the subcontinent has come to terms with. The inability of South Asian to work on their institutions or to address their own problems is a result of the “survival” mechanism they had developed in extreme circumstances at the time. Hopefully talking about these calamities and seeing how they shaped the region's history would be of help.

Birth of Pakistan in 1947 set the division of Pakistan in motion with India never comfortable having two Muslim majority states on two fronts of its borders. Political bankruptcy of the West Pakistani Generals and Politicians contributed to the successful implementation of the Indo-Russian strategy. America made a historical blunder and instead of helping the successful and peaceful partition of Pakistan contributed to the bloody breakup which is still stoking emotions in the region. Post division of Pakistan, Bangladesh continued to struggle and till date suffers from deep divisions among its politicians and people. India with secessionist movements in its North-east wants to keep Bangladesh under its wing but Bangladeshi people by far and large are anti-Indian and Indian secessionists are reportedly granted sanctuary at the local level. The division of subcontinent which started in 1947, seems to be an ongoing process and 1971 was just another chapter of the incomplete book.

The world is going to have to decide what it wants from the United States. I'm tired of being blamed for doing something, and for not doing something, in every other country in the world. Intervene, and the U.S. is blamed for being a neo-colonial exploiter. Don't intervene, and the U.S. is blamed for being a neo-colonial exploiter.

The U.S., already stretched by a war to "save" Vietnam that did nothing of the sort, decided not to do anything. To say that Nixon ended up being unpopular in the U.S. is an understatement, but he wouldn't have been more popular if he got the U.S. in another war. And the rest of the world would have blamed the U.S. for that, too.

Meanwhile, there are lots of other countries that could have intervened to stop the war but did not.

"I wonder if United States would be such a nation of war mongers if more people in USA actually KNEW the kind of things their government had done around the world."

Again, the U.S. opted not to intervene. And the rest of the world had better get used to it. Because we're tired of "civilians were gassed in Syria because of what the U.S. didn't do" and "Iraqis are still killing each other because of what the U.S. did."

I don't understand this logic.What America does or does not do is decided primarily on her self interest.The war in Vietnam was part of the cold war strategy to contain Communism.The involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was due to poor understanding of the complex balance of power in the region.It left Iran,the top dog in the region.The non involvement in the Bangladeshi crisis was partly due to geopolitical conditions but mainly to dislike of Indian leaders and their non alignment policy.

I don't understand this logic.What America does or does not do is decided primarily on her self interest.The war in Vietnam was part of the cold war strategy to contain Communism.The involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was due to poor understanding of the complex balance of power in the region.It left Iran,the top dog in the region.The non involvement in the Bangladeshi crisis was partly due to geopolitical conditions but mainly to dislike of Indian leaders and their non alignment policy.

Nixon did try to get in war against India by sending those warships into Bay of Bengal and inciting China to nail down India. Only thing that saved us 'bastards' was our democratically elected dictatorial 'bitch' who had the guts to kick that schizophrenic mad man right in the balls by signing an Indo-Soviet Friendship treaty and waiting for Himalayan passes to close due to winter snowfall before moving into Bangladesh in December.

It was originally a decision by the United Nations security council to intervene in Yugoslavia,and not taken by the United States unilaterally.The Serbs were trying to change the geopolitical structure of Europe, and Nato had no choice.The Serbs slaughtered the Muslims and vice versa and Nato(America)bombed and killed the Serbs.There are no heroes and villains in that sorry episode.War benefits nobody.

It will be a grave error if America intervenes to favour the opposition forces to get rid the present regime.This will put Al-Qaeda and fundamentalists firmly in the saddle.Just as is it happened in Egypt,it will reignite another conflagration to remove them.

While Kissinger's odious personality and Nixon's over-reliance on realpolitik were lamentable, it's entirely unclear what the USA could have done to ameliorate the situation even if there had been the political will so to do. At best it could have provided humanitarian relief. But in the end it was the actors on the ground who created their own fates. Nixon merely sat back and watched. As we see today with Syria, such a posture may be morally weak but intellectually coherent. No outside country, no matter how powerful, can really help much when the people of a country go to war with themselves.

Oh yes, I almost expected to find you here, my friend! What a wonderful self-serving comment! Nixon couldn't have done any better. (I remember your previous comments which displayed a rather lofty disdain towards the natives, I am glad to see you are as ultra-nationalist as the most rabid Indian news channels in terms of trying to justify and defend the worst aspects of America's record).

Humanitarian relief, huh?! Did you read the article? It was not talking about any relief. (subtly trying to discount direct American culpability?). It was talking about how America directly aided and abetted one of the largest massacres in the post World War 2 period. Pakistan was a close US ally receiving substantial US economic and military aid. Not only did US not say a single word to prevent Pakistan from doing this, they justified Pakistan's actions publicly, continued with substantial military assistance even at the peak of war, and tried to intervene militarily to intimidate India - which was the major country which was trying to stop the genocide. (in its own interest, no doubt..I am not saying India's intervention was based on humanitarian reasons, but it served a great humanitarian purpose).

I wonder if United States would be such a nation of war mongers if more people in USA actually KNEW the kind of things their government had done around the world. Forget about the average person, how many people specifically studying foreign policy in American universities know about such episodes. (and there are many such episodes in Asia and Latin America and Africa). If you type a prominent massacre that the Communists supported, the Google search returns hundreds of results including dozens of books written by Western researchers. But in cases where America is culpable? Yet some kind of vague propaganda about American exceptionalism reigns supreme in USA, surprisingly even among the liberal foreign policy elite and strategic establishment. The susceptibility to propaganda in a democracy is surprising - it is not the military industrial complex (why malign the military, they are not the ones clamoring for war), it is the strategic/foreign policy establishment/industrial complex, however inelegant the phrase.

Notice the orange line (military aid) during the 1979 – 1990, that was the Soviet Afghan War, the period that arguably could be defined as the formative years for modern militant Islam. The Afghan Mujahedeen’s were getting armed to the teeth and little boys were getting indoctrinated into the art of warfare to fight the holy war against the commies. Hollywood arguably even celebrated this through the famous “Charlie Wilson’s War”.

Also notice the significant spike of the orange line in 2001 – to date. That is when the same indoctrinated soldiers, who fought as US allies against the commies, turned on US and had to be fought against.

USA was in the position to stop the West Pakis from going into the war. They could tap on their head and suggest them to sit and resolve the issue amicably. The US was such powerful position that it could have easily stopped the genocide even before it started; even after the war was ravaging in such a horrific way; US stopped the UN resolution by vetoing in the security council. They waited 9 months to stop these Paki monsters and patted them to surrender to a safe retreat from the Eastern front. If they had listened to the Congress which was pro Bengali; the war could have averted or the death toll could have been far lower. Kenedy along with all of Congress urged the President to stop the Pakis from stopping the war but the President and his men gave no ear to their appeal. You can easily fact check my statement Sir.

USA was in the position to stop the West Pakis from going into the war. They could tap on their head and suggest them to sit and resolve the issue amicably. The US was such powerful position that it could have easily stopped the genocide even before it started; even after the war was ravaging in such a horrific way; US stopped the UN resolution by vetoing in the security council. They waited 9 months to stop these Paki monsters and patted them to surrender to a safe retreat from the Eastern front. If they had listened to the Congress which was pro Bengali; the war could have averted or the death toll could have been far lower. Kenedy along with all of Congress urged the President to stop the Pakis from stopping the war but the President and his men gave no ear to their appeal. You can easily fact check my statement Sir.

When I was much younger I foolishly admired both Nixon and Kissinger. The more I have learned about them and world events, particularly in SE Asia and now in South Asia the more I feel that Kissinger should have been tried as a criminal. I am shocked that he continues to play any role whatsoever in world events.

Hello Grinnell, You may or may not be aware that Henry Kissinger will not travel to certain European countries, viz, Spain and France, because if he did, magistrates in both would issue arrest warrants for him for his complicity in a) the coup against President Allende in Chile; b) his actions, or lack of, that encouraged the West Pakistanis to murder at least 300,000 East Pakistanis.

Judeo Christian inspired US foreign policy could relate to Pakistan more than Hindu India.

As quotedby Rajiv Malhotra " The denigration of Hinduism influences the way Americans relate to Indians. Andrew Rotter, an American historian, in his book on the US foreign policy’s tilt against India and towards Pakistan during the Nehru era, cites declassified documents revealing US presidents’ and diplomats’ suspicions of Hinduism. They regarded “Hindu India” as lacking morality and integrity, and its “grotesque images” reminded them of previous pagan faiths conquered by Christians, such as Native Americans. American ideas about India are intertwined with stereotypes about Hinduism.

This should change for the two great democracies to come together as partners. While US arrives at democracy through christian free will, Indian democracy is based on Hindu inspired pluralism. If a non western basis to liberal world order is accepted, US foreign policy will be able to project the soft power of the liberal leviathan more effectively and India is a key ally

The West (and the Economist) is primarily concerned about maintaining western dominance of the world. All the talk about human rights and so on is just a cover for the pursuit of their narrow self-interest. Indians should never forget how the West supported (and continues to support) Pakistan or how the Economist condemned India after the 1998 nuclear tests. India's policies should focus on the pursuit of India's own national interests.